Delhi High Court Issues Notice on ED Plea Challenging Interim Bail Granted to Al Falah University Chairman

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging a trial court order that granted two weeks of interim bail to Al Falah University group chairman Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui in a money laundering case.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard the matter and sought a response from Siddiqui on the agency’s challenge to the order. The High Court listed the matter for further hearing on March 19.

The Enforcement Directorate has argued that the trial court’s decision granting temporary relief to Siddiqui was legally flawed and failed to take into account several crucial aspects, including his alleged involvement in the Red Fort blast case.

Appearing for the agency, counsel Zoheb Hossain contended that the trial court granted interim bail primarily on the ground of the medical condition of Siddiqui’s wife, who is undergoing treatment for stage four ovarian cancer. However, he argued that the circumstances cited to justify the relief were incorrect and that the order was contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

According to the ED, the trial court also relied on an assumption that the couple’s children could not travel to India due to the ongoing crisis in West Asia. The agency argued that this finding was factually incorrect.

Hossain told the court that flights between the United Arab Emirates and India were operating normally and that a large number of Indians had returned to the country recently.

“In the last week alone, 52,000 Indians have come back to India on a large number of flights that are operating between UAE and India. So complete perversity that because there is a war, children can’t come back,” he submitted.

The ED counsel argued that if the medical condition of Siddiqui’s wife was indeed extremely serious, the children studying abroad would have returned to India to assist their parents. He alleged that the situation had been used as a pretext to secure interim bail.

“This is being used as a ruse to give interim bail. There is a perverse finding that they can’t come back. It is completely contrary to the facts,” he added.

The agency further submitted that the health condition of Siddiqui’s wife was stable and did not present an emergency that warranted the grant of interim bail. It was also argued that under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, exceptions relating to medical grounds primarily concern the health of the accused rather than that of a family member.

The ED also contended that the trial court failed to properly consider Siddiqui’s alleged criminal antecedents.

According to the agency, Siddiqui has connections with an FIR linked to the Red Fort blast case and some individuals accused in the terror investigation were allegedly associated with institutions connected to him.

Hossain argued that these aspects were ignored while granting the relief and warned that there was a possibility of the accused committing similar offences again if released.

“Antecedent of this person has been completely ignored. The gentleman has antecedents connected to the FIR in the Red Fort blast case. He is an accused in those cases. In fact, the terrorists are closely connected with him and were working for him in Al Falah University. There is likelihood of committing the offence again,” the ED counsel submitted.

The court was also informed that the alleged proceeds of crime in the case amounted to around ₹494 crore. Out of this amount, assets worth approximately ₹144 crore had been attached so far during the course of the investigation.

Senior counsel appearing for Siddiqui defended the trial court’s order and argued that the interim relief was granted after due consideration of the circumstances.

He described Siddiqui as a respected academician and contended that merely being named in FIRs should not automatically be treated as criminal antecedents under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The defence also emphasised that the medical condition of Siddiqui’s wife was serious and required his presence for caregiving and support.

“This is a case of framing a person. Complete abuse and misuse of the PMLA. This man was not involved in any way in the scheduled offence or in this case,” the defence counsel argued.

The trial court had granted Siddiqui interim bail on March 7 for a period of two weeks to allow him to take care of his wife while she undergoes treatment for stage four ovarian cancer.

While granting the relief, the trial court also noted that the couple’s three children were studying in the United Arab Emirates and were allegedly unable to travel to India due to the ongoing unrest in West Asia. This, the court observed, meant that Siddiqui’s wife did not have immediate family support in the country.

Siddiqui was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on November 18, 2025 in connection with a money laundering case linked to alleged financial irregularities involving institutions run by the Al Falah Charitable Trust.

The ED investigation stems from two FIRs registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch. The FIRs allege that Al Falah University falsely projected that it had accreditation from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council and recognition from the University Grants Commission in order to attract students.

According to the agency, the university generated approximately ₹415.10 crore between 2018 and 2025 through fees collected from students. The ED has alleged that a portion of these funds was diverted for personal use.

The university has also come under scrutiny in a separate probe described as a “white collar terror” investigation. In that case, two doctors associated with the institution were arrested, while another doctor linked to its hospital was identified as the suicide bomber in a blast that occurred outside the Red Fort on November 10, killing 15 people.

The Delhi High Court will now examine the ED’s challenge to the interim bail order when the matter comes up for hearing on March 19.

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate vs. Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui

Source: ANI